1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates generally to progressive promotional systems for casino gaming machines, and more particularly to progressive promotional systems that are funded independently of the underlying gaming machines to which they are coupled, and operate and increment independently of the outcomes on such gaming machines.
2. Description of Background Art
Progressive jackpot systems are widely recognized as adding an exciting second chance to win feature for gaming machines. In a progressive jackpot system, a number of casino gaming machines are linked together over a network. The jackpot is “progressive” because each such linked game contributes a portion of the money bet by the player to the progressive jackpot. Thus over time, with many machines on a progressive system, the jackpot can grow to millions, even tens of millions of dollars. Generally, each individual linked game determines whether the player wins the progressive jackpot. Further, in order to win the progressive jackpot, the player at the linked machine must win the jackpot on the gaming machine itself, and must have bet the maximum amount that the gaming machine allows. it is incrementally funded with a small percentage of each player's bet (coin in) on each play. Progressive jackpot systems can be either local, such as operating only in a single casino, or wide area, such as operating across multiple casinos. Because wide area progressive systems include more gaming machines, they will tend to have larger jackpots and thereby draw more players, and thereby support larger jackpots similar to lotteries sweepstakes.
As mentioned, conventional progressive jackpot systems fund the jackpot amount from a small percentage of each player's bet. Another way of saying this is that the amount that increments the progressive jackpot is calculated into the pay table of the gaming machine. The pay table defines amount paid out for each type of win, represented to the player as a winning combination of symbols on a slot machine. For example, if the hold percentage on a progressive machine is 9%, some amount of this, say 6%, is the base hold rate used to fund the pay table, and the remaining 3% is the progressive hold rate that is directed to the progressive jackpot. Thus, for each dollar bet, 3 cents goes into the progressive jackpot. If 10 players are playing the gaming machines, and averaging ten, $1 bets per minute, then the progressive jackpot is being funded at a rate of $3 per minute. Again, this increment process is dependent on the portion of the hold that is directed into the progressive jackpot, as multiplied by the number of players, and the amount bet per minute.
This way of funding the progressive jackpot impacts the overall payout by the gaming machine. Between two otherwise identical machines with a base hold rate of 6%, the non-progressive machine returns on average 94% to the player, but the progressive machine with 3% going into the progressive pot returns only 91%. The retained 3% is directly taken from the casino's revenue, and the casino has no control over these funds. Further, in the case of a wide area progressive, the operator has no control in determining in which casino the jackpot will be awarded.
In order to obtain the progressive jackpot, a player must make the maximum bet only certain gaming machines. Accordingly, it would be desirable to provide a progressive jackpot system that did not fund the progressive jackpot directly from the paytable for the specific gaming machine, but funded it independently thereof. It would be further desirable to have a progressive jackpot available on any gaming machine as determined by the casino operator.
Because progressive jackpots can offer a life-changing outcome, they remain very attractive to many players, who continue to desire their availability. However, progressive systems are not entirely beneficial to the casinos that operate them. This is because the wide area progressive jackpot systems are not generally owned by the casino. Rather they are owned by the gaming machine manufacturers themselves, who profit directly from the players' contribution to the progressive jackpot. Nevertheless, the casino must still pay for at least some of the maintenance, service, and operation of the progressive machines. On the one hand, players demand that casino operators provide progressive jackpot machines. On the other hand, most of the profit from a progressive jackpot system goes to the game machine manufacturer not the casino. For this reason many casino operators feel forced to provide progressive systems, even though they do not significantly profit from them. Further, because of player demand, these machines are typically placed in the more valuable locations on the casino floor, further depriving the casino operator of maximizing its revenue using other types of games.
The casino operators' dilemma results from the particular technological design of conventional progressive systems. Because a game manufacturer owns the progressive system, it typically restricts which gaming machines can be linked to the progressive system. In addition, a game manufacturer can prevent a casino operator from using the game manufacturer's most popular games in other company's progressive systems. These restrictions prevent the casino operator from deciding for itself which game machines are to be coupled with a progressive system. To achieve this control, most game manufacturers use proprietary hardware and software to operate their progressive systems and their games. By using a proprietary approach, the game manufacturer can retain complete control over the progressive system, and can require use of its own gaming machines in its progressive system. This constrains the casino operator to use specific gaming machines from a particular manufacturer if it wants to have a particular progressive jackpot system. Accordingly, it would be desirable for a casino operator to be able to couple any gaming machines of its choosing to a progressive system, to reward play at such gaming machines.